4.2 Article

Time Trends and Payer Differences in Lengths of Initial Hospitalization for Preterm Infants, Arkansas, 2004 to 2010

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 33-42

Publisher

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1373843

Keywords

length of stay; preterm infants; accelerated failure time model; time trend

Funding

  1. National Center for Research Resources [UL1TR000039]
  2. Antenatal Guidelines, Education and Learning System (ANGELS) initiative
  3. Arkansas Division of Medical Services
  4. Arkansas Department of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to examine the time trend in length of stay (LOS) and explore potential differences in neonatal LOS by insurance type for preterm infants in Arkansas between 2004 and 2010. Study DesignThere were 18,712 preterm infants included in our analyses. Accelerated failure time models were used to model neonatal LOS as a function of insurance type and discharge year while adjusting for key maternal and infant characteristics, and complication/anomaly indicators. ResultsBefore adjusting for the complication/anomaly indicators, the LOS for preterm infants delivered to mothers in the Medicaid group was 3.2% shorter than those in the private payer group. Furthermore, each subsequent year was associated with a 1.6% increase in the expected LOS. However, after accounting for complications and anomalies, insurance coverage differences in neonatal LOS were not statistically significant while the trend in LOS persisted at a 0.59% increase for each succeeding year. ConclusionAll of the apparent differences in LOS by insurance type and more than half of the apparent increase in LOS over time are accounted for by higher rates of complications among privately insured preterm infants and increasing rates of complications for all surviving preterm infants between 2004 and 2010.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available